Central Administrative Tribunal
Lalitesh vs M/O RAILWAYS on 5 October 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH
Original Application No. 332/000169/2024
This, the 05th day of October, 2026
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J), HON’BLE MR. PANKAJ KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Lalitesh, aged about 34 years daughter of Shri Rama Shankar c/o Birendra Kumar, quarter No. 3092/B, Type-3 Prashant Parisar, Modern Coach Factory, Lalganj, Raebareli, presently working as Chief Office Superintendent (Level 8) (Employee No. 52000100290)
S & T MCF Raebareli
..Applicant
By Advocate: Shri V.S. Tripathi.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. General
Manager
(Personnel)
Rail
Coach
Factory
Kapurthala.
3. Senior Personnel Officer II Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala.
4. General Manager (Personnel), Modern Coach Factory (MCF), Raebareli.
5. Assistant Personnel Officer / Staff, Modern Coach Factory (MCF), Raebareli.
…..Respondents
By Advocate: Ms. Prayagmati Gupta.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
PER HON’BLE JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
2. Through this OA, applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:- “1. Quash the impugned show cause notice no. MCF/RBL/Estt./P.File 857 (Loose case) dated 02.03.2024 issued by Assistant Personnel Officer /Staff Opposite party no. 5 Annexure no. A-1
2. Pass any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
3. Award the cost of Original Application to the applicant.”
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents argued that this OA is not maintainable as it has been filed against show cause notice (Annexure No. A-1) dated 02.03.2024.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant opposed the aforesaid submissions and argued that Railway Board vide its letter No. E(NG)-I2018/CFP/5 dated27.06.2025 (Annexure No. RA-10 to the rejoinder affidavit) has clarified that the instructions dated 01.03.2017, expressly specifying two years’ service condition for SC/ST employees under the 16-2/3% promotion quota, are effective from the date of issue of the Board’s letter dated 01.03.2017. However, the cases decided earlier in a manner otherwise than these instructions dated 01.03.2017 supra, need not be reviewed.
Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that applicant would be happy and satisfied if applicant is permitted to file fresh representation stating all the facts and competent authority may be directed to decide the same by way of reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period of time.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that competent authority may also be directed not to take coercive action against the applicant till disposal of the said representation.
5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we direct the applicant to make fresh representation before the competent authority mentioning therein Annexure No. RA-10 and other points and competent authority are directed to consider and decide the same within two months from the date of receipt of aforesaid representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Till disposal of such representation, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.
6. Merits of the case has not been touched upon by this Tribunal.
7. The OA is disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to costs. Associated MAs also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha) Member (A)
Member (J)
JNS Jay Narayan Singh Digitally signed by Jay Narayan Singh Date: 2026.10.06 11:36:41 +05'30'